Leftist Justice

 https://x.com/chiefegregore/status/2067062412952354870?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

" I have now read the Rape Gang Inquiry Report in full. I've been following this story quite closely for something like a decade so I'm not exactly surprised by its contents, but three elements stand out to me amongst the horror. The first is that a large majority of the victims who provided testimony describe some kind of troubled or disrupted home life. Some were molested by family members before the rape gangs ever got ahold of them. Others faced physical abuse, neglect, drug addicted parents, housing instability, and so on. Their testimony often describes a kind of "screening" process where a girl's particular vulnerability was evaluated with more moderate boundary pushing before escalation to full on rape and abuse. This isn't necessarily surprising given the nefarious intentions the gangs had for these girls, but their willingness to explicitly target the absolute most vulnerable children who were already struggling sickens me. These girls, more than anyone, needed some kind of adult guidance in their lives, and this vulnerability was cynically exploited to initiate them into an even more egregious Hell. Which brings me to the second detail, which is the extreme violence these girls were subjected to. "Grooming Gang" is an unacceptable euphemism that may accurately describe common initiatory tactics employed against these girls, but which criminally downplays the behavior of their abusers once initiated. These girls were not "merely" groomed into sex. They were not "merely" raped. They were not "merely" trafficked. They were subjected to a program of overtly racialized sexual torture and humiliation designed to maximally degrade them and kill them in their souls. And this was "acceptable" because they were White and not Muslims. This detail fundamentally alters the character of these crimes. This was not horny men out of control or even cross-cultural understanding gaps around the age of consent. This was a targeted program of ritualized torture and subjugation as a means of ethnic domination. In other words, these gangs are conducting war against the White British using serial child rape and torture as a form of conquest. These are not crimes in the conventional sense. These are war crimes being conducted by one civilization against another, and they need to be treated as such. And finally, the third point (encapsulated in the excerpt below) is that every single level of the state utterly failed these girls in the most egregious and unfathomable ways imaginable. It's one thing when you have no physical evidence and are confronted with a "he said / she said" situation with respect to a rape allegation. It's another thing entirely when you have a pre-teen frequent flier at the NHS back again for her Nth sexually transmitted disease treatment, a 13 year old with broken glass shards embedded in her vagina, or a pregnant 13 year old. These are cases with obvious alarming physical evidence that no one addressed in any meaningful way. Politicians (Labour in particular) covered it up and suppressed action into investigations in order to maintain the Islamic bloc vote. Police suppressed investigations, dismissed accusations and evidence, intimidated victims into silence, arrested victims for the crimes of their abusers, dismissed proven cases of rape with impotent warning letters, and in some cases directly raped the girls themselves. Care homes disregarded obvious signs of abuse (including outright confessions), and enabled their abusers to maintain consistent access to the girls, in some cases acting more like pimps than caregivers. Social workers addressed victims' needs so incompetently they recommended victims audition for a TV show role about being a child prostitute because it was "relatable" and even attended a victim's coerced sham marriage to her abuser. NHS staff consistently failed to do anything in the face of overt medical evidence of obvious, undeniable sex crimes against these girls, treating the acute problem and sending them on their way with no protection whatsoever. And teachers, much like the social workers, routinely delivered their students into the predatory arms of their abusers as they waited outside the schools, and utterly failed to appropriately address signs or confessions of abuse. Virtually every arm of the state is directly complicit in exacerbating the abuse. Not one single institution at any level reliably offered protection or recourse to these girls. As far as I am concerned I Restore government would be entirely justified in firing every single person in the employ of the state. If they are not a documented whistleblower they are complicit and thus compromised, and none of them have any business retaining their roles or their pensions. On the contrary large numbers of state officials deserve severe penalties for criminal negligence or outright complicity in these crimes. Justice for these crimes will necessarily take place at a scale that will shock the pacified sensibilities of the over-socialized Liberal West, but nothing short of a biblical level reckoning will be sufficient to qualify as justice in this case.

@RupertLowe10

is not wrong to draw comparisons to the Holocaust. It is the only appropriate frame of reference in the popular zeitgeist that articulates the actual magnitude of what was allowed to take place under successive British governments. Nor is he wrong to propose the reinstatement of the death penalty as the appropriate restitution for these crimes. The rapists and state officials who enabled this atrocity both deserve to hang. And I pray that the British public will entrust Rupert with the power to deliver justice long overdo. In any case I am deeply appreciative of his efforts to bring this to light. He is the hero Britain needs right now. Vote Restore. Deliver these girls justice."

 

 https://x.com/basilthegreat/status/2067526489835213099?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 "NEWS: A French woman was given a six month suspended sentence and a €3,000 fine after her home was invaded by a Tunisian migrant who sexually assaulted her. She appeared on national television to discuss her ordeal and said "the main danger for women in France is Black African and Arab immigrant men" The Police then charged her with "incitement to racial hatred" Her appeal against this punishment is due later today You have our support."

 https://x.com/basilthegreat/status/2067681132997435567?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 https://rmx.news/article/bangladeshi-migrant-avoids-sexual-assault-conviction-after-impregnating-10-year-old-girl-in-italian-asylum-hotel-after-judge-rules-no-evidence-of-coercion/

 "Bangladeshi migrant avoids sexual assault conviction after impregnating 10-year-old girl in Italian asylum hotel after judge rules ‘no evidence of coercion’

An Italian judge ruled there was insufficient evidence of force or threats to support a sexual assault conviction, sentencing the defendant instead for sexual acts with a minor"

 

BOT

 https://x.com/sayssimulation/status/2067558426280886508?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

I'm not going to post the whole thread as one piece, but worth checking out.  

 

Systemic Racism, Those Who Control The System Are Responsible For The Racism

 https://x.com/BskiMike22802/status/2067960389250544009

" 

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED: HERE IS YOUR SYSTEMIC RACISM And the Party That Built Every Single Case of It Is Currently Lecturing You About It.

By Mike Bski |

@BskiMike22802

| Bski's Classroom

Let me say something before this article goes another word.

RACISM IS EVIL.

Full stop. Not a debate opener. Not a rhetorical hedge. An absolute moral statement I hold as a Christian, as a man who wore the uniform for twenty-three years, and as someone who watched — with his own eyes, in a country that was not his own — what happens when human beings decide that other people are worth less because of what they were born as. I have seen what tribal hatred produces at its conclusion. I carry what it produces. I do not need a lecture on this topic from anyone.

Now. With that foundation cemented.

Let me answer the challenge.

You have heard it before. Ben Shapiro poses it on his program. Matt Walsh asks it. Charlie Kirk puts it to college students who go completely haywire trying to find an answer. The question goes something like this: name one SPECIFIC POLICY in America that is structurally racist against Black Americans right now, today, in 2026. Not a historical injustice. A live, active, structural system of racial discrimination built into American law and policy.

The left sputters. Changes the subject. Talks in circles about "structures" and "systems" and "lived experiences" without ever landing on anything specific. Because the honest answer to that question sends the entire narrative off a cliff.

I am going to answer it today. Not with one case. With TEN.

Ten specific, documented, historically verifiable, currently operating systems of structural racism embedded in American policy. Cases with receipts. Cases with peer-reviewed research, primary sources, congressional records, and Supreme Court opinions attached. Cases you can look up, verify, argue against if you think you can, and lose the argument on because the data does not care about your feelings.

Here is the part I need you to brace for.

Every single one of them was created by the Democratic Party, is currently defended by the Democratic Party, and produces measurable harm to minority communities while the Democratic Party stands at the podium demanding that you only look in one direction.

One party. Ten cases. No exceptions.

Class is in session. Try to keep up.

-- EXHIBIT A: THE MINIMUM WAGE -- A RACIST POLICY WITH AN UNBROKEN BLOODLINE --

I want to start here because this is the one that produces the most spectacular denial. The minimum wage. The sacred altar of progressive economic policy. The thing they scream about on every street corner as racial justice.

Its founders were eugenicists. That is not an insult. That is the historical record.

Princeton economist Thomas Leonard spent an entire academic career establishing what the mainstream left desperately hopes you never find out. The minimum wage was advocated in the early twentieth century by progressive economists -- the INTELLECTUAL ANCESTORS of today's Democratic Party -- specifically as a mechanism to PRICE CERTAIN WORKERS OUT OF THE LABOR MARKET. Their word for those workers was "unemployables." And when they said unemployables, they meant Black Americans, recent immigrants from southern Europe, and the disabled. They said this openly. In published academic papers. In progressive journals. Not in private letters. In print, under their own names, without apparent embarrassment.

Sidney and Beatrice Webb -- heroes of the progressive intellectual movement -- argued openly that a wage floor set high enough would function as what they called social cleansing. Remove the "inferior" workers from the market by making their labor too expensive to hire. No need for an explicit racial law. Just mandate a price that prices them out, and the "problem" solves itself.

Union leaders of that era had even less patience for euphemism. They stated it plainly: minimum wage rules removed "the incentive for employing the Negro." Direct quote. Primary source. Not an editorial interpretation. Their words.

Then came the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931. Federal law. Signed into existence by a Republican president, yes -- but PUSHED by Southern Democrats and northern union bosses who were infuriated that Black construction workers were winning federal contracts by working for competitive market wages. Texas Representative Martin Dies said it on the FLOOR OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS -- not in a private dinner conversation, not in a letter, on the floor in the Congressional Record -- "you cannot prescribe the same wages for the Black man as the White man." The bill passed.

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 established the federal minimum wage -- and excluded agricultural workers and domestic servants from its protections. Historian Ira Katznelson documented exhaustively that those exclusions were the price Southern Democrats demanded in exchange for their votes, because agricultural work and domestic service were where Black Americans were concentrated in the Jim Crow South. The quasi-plantation economy of the South required that Black labor remain cheap and captive. The exclusions preserved it. With federal law. Under a Democratic president.

Milton Friedman -- Nobel Prize in Economics, 1976, a man not exactly known for political recklessness -- called the minimum wage "the most anti-Negro law on our statute books" in 1966.

You might be tempted to say that was then and this is now. Fine. Let me give you the current data, since I am a science teacher and I deal in current data.

A review of over one hundred minimum wage studies found that approximately two-thirds showed NEGATIVE employment effects. Research in South Carolina documented that minimum wage increases reduced employment by 8.9 percent for teenagers and 15.5 percent for workers without a high school diploma. Read that second number again. Workers WITHOUT a diploma -- the most economically vulnerable people in the country, DISPROPORTIONATELY young workers of color -- lost employment at a rate of fifteen and a half percent. The Congressional Budget Office projected a $17 federal minimum wage would cause 350,000 workers to leave the labor force entirely. Not transition to better jobs. Leave the workforce. Into government dependency. Exactly where someone profits from them being.

The policy was designed in 1931 to price Black workers out of the labor market. It still does that in 2026. The branding changed. The outcome did not move an inch.

Quinn's First Law, stated plainly: LIBERALISM ALWAYS GENERATES THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF ITS STATED INTENT. Every time. Without exception.

-- EXHIBIT B: LABOR UNIONS -- THE INSTITUTION THAT FOUGHT THE HARDEST TO KEEP BLACK WORKERS OUT --

The minimum wage does not exist in a vacuum. Its partner in this structural arrangement is the American labor union movement -- or more precisely, the version of it that the Democratic Party has been in bed with since the New Deal.

I want to be careful here, because I am a teacher and precision matters. The labor union movement produced genuine good in its early years fighting against dangerous working conditions, brutal hours, and child labor. That history is real and should not be erased.

But here is what also should not be erased: the mainstream American labor union movement spent DECADES systematically excluding Black workers from membership, from skilled trade apprenticeships, from pension protections, and from the political voice that union membership conferred.

The American Federation of Labor under Samuel Gompers used "lily-white" admission policies for individual craft unions. When unions could not legally bar Black members, they created separate and clearly inferior "auxiliary" locals. Philip Randolph, a Black union leader who organized the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, spent YEARS fighting AFL leadership just to get Black workers recognized. He was fighting the very institution that the Democratic Party has treated as a sacred constituency for ninety years.

The Davis-Bacon Act connection is direct and documented: prevailing wage requirements on federal projects were specifically designed by union interests to eliminate the competitive advantage Black non-union workers had, which was their willingness to work for market wages. Set the floor at union rates and you automatically exclude non-union workers. Who were disproportionately Black. This was not accidental. This was the design. The union leadership said so.

And today? Today the Democratic Party collects somewhere between $1.5 and $2 billion per election cycle in union contributions and support. The same institution that spent the better part of a century erecting walls around skilled trades -- walls that took decades of Republican-supported civil rights litigation to begin dismantling -- still writes Democratic campaign checks. And the Democratic Party still champions union labor laws that make it harder for non-union workers to compete.

One jobbernowl in a press conference calling this "worker solidarity" does not change what the structure produces.

-- EXHIBIT C: THE VOTER ID ARGUMENT -- THE MOST OPENLY RACIST POSITION IN MODERN AMERICAN POLITICS --

I need you to stop and actually think about what the Democratic Party's official position on voter ID says about Black Americans. Not what they SAY it says. What it LOGICALLY REQUIRES you to believe.

Their position: requiring a government-issued photo ID to register to vote is racist because it disproportionately burdens Black voters.

What that position requires you to believe: Black Americans are uniquely incapable of obtaining a photo ID.

That is the sentence hiding under all the vocabulary about "access" and "barriers" and "disenfranchisement." Strip every layer of progressive language away and you are left with one claim: Black Americans cannot do something that every other adult in America does as a matter of routine.

The same photo ID required to drive a car. Board an airplane. Open a bank account. Rent an apartment. Purchase alcohol. Pick up a controlled prescription. Apply for a job -- where your employer is LEGALLY REQUIRED to verify your identity via I-9, requiring government documentation. Enter a federal building. Sign a lease. Adopt a pet from some shelters. Attend, as it happens, many Democratic National Committee events where photo ID is required for credentialed entry.

One activity, apparently, requires no such verification: the act of voting for the people who govern a constitutional republic of 330 million people.

The Congressional Black Caucus called the SAVE Act -- which simply requires proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections -- "Jim Crow 2.0." Let me put the polling alongside that statement. Seventy-six percent of Black Americans support voter ID requirements. SEVENTY-SIX. The CBC is not speaking for Black America on this one. The data is very clear about that. The same data that shows 80 percent of Hispanic Americans and 80 percent of white Americans support it.

The NAACP and League of Women Voters challenged Missouri's voter ID law all the way to their state Supreme Court. The court upheld it. One plaintiff testified she could take Uber, could walk reasonable distances, could vote by provisional ballot, and already had voted by provisional ballot -- which was counted. The court found no legally cognizable burden.

I teach in a high-need district. Every single one of my students -- students facing economic hardship, unstable home situations, parents working two jobs -- when they needed identification for something that mattered to them, they found a way. Because they are capable human beings. The same capable human beings the Democratic Party is publicly arguing cannot manage what a sixteen-year-old needs to buy a lottery ticket.

That argument is not advocacy. That is contempt wearing a compassion costume. And that contempt -- the belief that Black Americans uniquely cannot navigate the ordinary mechanics of civic life -- is STRUCTURALLY EMBEDDED in Democratic voting rights policy. That is a system. That is structural. That is racism. Case closed.

-- EXHIBIT D: RACIAL GERRYMANDERING -- BUILT BY DEMOCRATS, DEFENDED BY DEMOCRATS, NAMED AFTER A DEMOCRAT --

The word "gerrymandering" comes from a Democratic-Republican governor named Elbridge Gerry who, in 1812, signed a redistricting bill in Massachusetts so contorted it looked like a salamander. The Boston Gazette called it a "Gerry-mander." The word stuck. The practice never left.

And it has never left the party that invented it.

From the Reconstruction era through the 1960s, Democratic-controlled Southern state legislatures used racial gerrymandering to systematically crack and pack Black Republican voters into political oblivion. Not as a side effect. As the explicit policy goal. Break Black communities across multiple districts so they cannot elect anyone. Stack them in a single, uncompetitive district and then control the representative anyway. Either way, Black political power is contained and managed.

The irony -- and I use that word carefully because what I really mean is the breathtaking audacity -- is that in 2026, the same party is arguing that racial gerrymandering PROTECTS Black voters. That drawing a 250-mile tentacle from Shreveport to Baton Rouge specifically to concentrate Black population is not a racial corral managed by party operatives, but a civil rights defense.

On April 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court handed down Louisiana v. Callais in a 6-3 decision and said, with the patience of a court that has said this before: no. Equal protection means EQUAL. Minority voters are entitled to "nothing less and nothing more" than what race-neutral criteria produce. You cannot use race as the predominant factor in drawing a congressional district and dress it up as Voting Rights Act compliance.

The left melted down on cue.

They accused the Court of gutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Neither of them cited a single sentence of the 51-page opinion. Because the opinion says the OPPOSITE of what they claimed. But here is what the meltdown actually SAYS if you listen to what is underneath the words: without government-managed racial concentration districts, Black Americans cannot be politically represented. They NEED a White Democratic Party operative to draw their geographic corral for them. Otherwise chaos.

That is not protection. That is ownership. And it is structural. And it was built by Democrats.

The Congressional Black Caucus made the point accidentally when they denied membership to Representative Steve Cohen of Tennessee -- the congressman representing a majority-Black district in Memphis -- because he is white. The Black voters of Memphis went to the polls, exercised their constitutional right, and chose Cohen to represent them. The CBC said their choice was invalid. Because the racial classification of their elected representative did not meet the CBC's standards.

The Black voters of Memphis were told their votes only count when they vote correctly.

That is the most accurate description of Democratic racial politics I have ever encountered. And it came from the CBC itself.

-- EXHIBIT E: THE WELFARE ARCHITECTURE -- THE MOST EFFECTIVE FAMILY DESTRUCTION PROGRAM IN AMERICAN HISTORY --

Here is a number I need you to sit with.

In 1960 -- before Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs arrived -- approximately 80 to 85 percent of Black children in America were raised in two-parent households.

I want that number to land. A community that had survived chattel slavery. The Black Codes. The Ku Klux Klan as a functioning paramilitary organization conducting organized political murder with legal impunity for the murderers. Economic exclusion so thorough it would take decades to catalog. Jim Crow. Through ALL OF IT, the Black American family maintained structural cohesion that social scientists of the era documented with genuine admiration.

Then the Great Society programs arrived.

Within one generation -- not centuries, ONE GENERATION -- that figure collapsed to below 30 percent. Out-of-wedlock births among Black Americans went from 21 percent in 1965 to over 77 percent today. Two hundred years of slavery could not break the Black family. Jim Crow could not break it. Democratic welfare architecture did it in thirty years.

The mechanism was not accidental. It was ARCHITECTURAL. Benefits available to single mothers disappeared upon marriage. The federal government created, with mathematical precision, a financial incentive for fathers to leave. Taking a low-wage job often cost MORE in lost benefits than the job paid in wages -- the marginal tax rate on welfare recipients was, in practice, punitive. The rational choice, for a person trying to survive, was welfare over work. And that rational choice was rewarded and sustained for sixty years of continued program expansion.

The dependency loop closes elegantly. Minimum wage eliminates entry-level employment for low-skill workers. Those workers qualify for welfare. Welfare structure penalizes marriage and earned income. Workers stay dependent. Dependent people vote reliably for the party that promises to protect and expand the programs they depend on. Democrats deliver the programs. Dependency deepens. Votes lock in permanently.

On January 10, 1963, Congressman A.S. Herlong Jr. read into the Congressional Record a list of 45 Communist Goals for America, derived from Cleon Skousen's research in The Naked Communist. I deal in observable outcomes, not conspiracy theories. But Goal Number 40 -- "Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce" -- describes with uncomfortable precision the statistical result of Democratic welfare architecture applied to Black communities over sixty years. Whether anyone deliberately aimed for that outcome or arrived at it through spectacular negligence, the outcome is the same. And the outcome is structural. And the structure was built by Democrats.

The antebellum South needed an enslaved population to sustain its political and economic order. The Democratic Party of 2026 needs a dependent population -- poorly educated, disconnected from the labor market, reliant on government programs -- to sustain its electoral coalition. The chains look different. The operating logic has not moved a single degree in two hundred years.

-- EXHIBIT F: DEI, RACE-BASED ADMISSIONS, AND THE RACISM WITH A UNIVERSITY LOGO ON IT --

I want to address this one carefully, because the left has gotten very good at making the discriminator sound like the victim.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs, at their operational core, sort people by race. Not by merit. Not by demonstrated need. By RACE. Government jobs offered to candidates based on their racial classification. Federal contracts steered based on racial classification. College admissions evaluating applicants based on racial classification. This is, by the plain definition of the word, racial discrimination.

In 2023, the United States Supreme Court said so. In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and UNC, the Court ruled that race-conscious admissions programs at American universities violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The same amendment passed by Republicans in 1868 to end racial discrimination once and for all. The Court held that admissions must be race-neutral. Period.

Here is what the evidence showed before the ruling. Asian-American applicants at Harvard were systematically downgraded on a "personal rating" that Harvard's own admissions officers assigned without meeting the students. They were rated lower on traits like likability, leadership, and being widely respected -- ratings assigned by people who had never spoken to them. White students with identical academic credentials were admitted at higher rates. The racial hierarchy in Harvard admissions was real, documented, and operated for decades while Harvard won progressive credibility points for its commitment to diversity.

DEI programs operating in government hiring produce the same structural discrimination, now against white applicants -- and in many agencies, against Asian applicants as well. The racial classification that produces this outcome is SYSTEMIC. It is written into hiring guidance, contract requirements, university policy, and in some cases, federal regulation. That is a structure. That is systemic. It just happens to discriminate against the group the left decided it was acceptable to discriminate against.

And the most pea-brained part of all of it: the left invented race-based university admissions as a remedy for historical discrimination, ran it for sixty years, and now expresses absolute bewilderment that treating people as racial categories rather than individuals might eventually produce backlash and legal consequences. Quinn's Law again. Always the opposite.

The snollygoster who can look at the Harvard data and still say race-based admissions are not discriminatory has a relationship with the word "discrimination" that requires significant medical attention.

-- EXHIBIT G: EXCLUSIONARY ZONING -- THE WALL THEY BUILT AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND CALLED IT PLANNING --

This is the one that hits closest to where people live. Literally.

Minimum lot size requirements. Single-family-only zoning. Setback regulations. Parking minimums. Floor-to-area ratios. Density caps. Environmental review processes that allow existing residents to delay and kill proposed housing for years.

These are the technical vocabulary of American housing regulation. They sound bureaucratic. Boring, even. The thing about structural racism is that it often puts on a boring costume.

Researcher Tianfang Cui documented in a 2023 empirical study that the explosion of exclusionary zoning in American suburbs correlated precisely -- not coincidentally, not randomly, PRECISELY -- with the Great Black Migration, as Black Americans moved from the South into northern and western cities in the mid-twentieth century. In areas with the highest predicted Black in-migration, minimum lot sizes were dramatically more common and significantly more restrictive.

The mechanism is simple and does not require anyone to write a racist word anywhere. If you require that every home be built on a lot of at least five thousand square feet, you have established a PRICE FLOOR. Land cost is fixed by the lot minimum regardless of how modest your construction plans are. Developers build the most expensive product the lot can support, because that maximizes their return. Entry-level homeownership becomes structurally impossible in that jurisdiction. And the community that cannot afford the result is systematically excluded without a single explicitly racial law being written.

The Lakewood Plan of 1954 -- where a California suburb incorporated specifically to gain local zoning control while contracting services from Los Angeles County -- was 99 percent white in 1960. The model spread through California and across the country. Not because of explicit racial policy. Because of zoning authority that produced racial exclusion as reliably as if it had been the stated goal.

The wealthiest, most "progressive" suburbs in America -- the ones with the most lawn signs about equity, the most bumper stickers about inclusion, the most social media posts about systemic racism -- also happen to have the most aggressive exclusionary zoning in the country. San Francisco. The Westside of Los Angeles. Wealthy Westchester County suburbs outside New York. They perform progressive politics while their zoning codes function as the most effective housing exclusion machinery in the country.

That is a structure. It operates systematically. It produces racially disparate outcomes in homeownership rates -- the single most significant driver of intergenerational wealth accumulation in American life. And the people defending it loudest are the ones demanding you look somewhere else for systemic racism.

Magnificent hypocrisy. Truly world-class.

-- EXHIBIT H: DEMOCRAT-RUN URBAN EDUCATION -- FIFTY YEARS OF DOCUMENTED FAILURE IN THE COMMUNITIES THEY CLAIM TO CHAMPION --

This one is personal. I am a teacher. I work in a high-need Career and Technical Education district. I published my own textbooks because the available ones were not good enough for my students. I have watched what happens when an educational system that has the right politics and the wrong results gets to operate unchallenged for decades.

Name the major American cities with the worst K-12 educational outcomes for Black children. Detroit. Baltimore. Chicago. Newark. Cleveland. St. Louis. Memphis. Oakland.

Now name the political party that has controlled those cities, their school boards, their teachers union contracts, their education budgets, and their administrative leadership for the last fifty years. One guess.

I will save you the trouble. It is the same party.

Fifty years of unchallenged Democratic control of urban education has produced the most catastrophic educational outcomes for Black American children in the country. Graduation rates that make your stomach hurt. Literacy scores that should generate criminal investigations. Schools so thoroughly failed that the one reform that would actually help -- SCHOOL CHOICE, allowing families to take their education dollars to schools that actually educate -- is fought at every turn by the teachers unions that fund Democratic campaigns.

Milton Friedman, who was right about most things, advocated for school vouchers specifically because he understood that competition is the only force that reliably improves institutional performance. A captive student body in a geographic monopoly has no ability to discipline a failing school. But give families the ability to leave -- and institutions that fail them have an actual, immediate, financial consequence.

The Democratic Party fights school choice everywhere, in every election cycle, at every level of government. The argument against it is always some variation of "we need to invest in public schools." The answer to that argument is: you have been investing in these public schools for fifty years. Look at what you built. Look at the graduation rates. Look at the literacy scores. At some point, the hypothesis that MORE funding without structural accountability will produce different results deserves the same scrutiny I give students who keep getting the experiment wrong.

The students in those cities are not failing. The SYSTEM is failing them. And the system is owned, operated, and defended by one party.

That is systemic. And it is, by any honest measure, racist in its outcomes -- even if no one who runs it would describe it that way.

On January 10, 1963, Congressman Herlong read Goal Number 17 into the Congressional Record: "Get control of the schools and use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda." Whether that describes deliberate policy or simply what organized self-interest in a monopoly institution produces, the outcome for Black children in Democratic-controlled cities is the same. Sixty years of declining outcomes dressed up in sixty years of progressive rhetoric about caring.

-- EXHIBIT I: PLANNED PARENTHOOD -- A EUGENICS PROJECT WEARING A HEALTHCARE COSTUME --

I saved this one for the end because it is the one that should, by all rights, be the easiest case of the entire article. And it is the one the left will fight hardest to wave away, because this is the institution they have built into a sacrament.

Planned Parenthood was founded in 1916 by Margaret Sanger. Sanger was not a healthcare pioneer who happened to hold some unfortunate opinions for her era. She was a committed, vocal, published eugenicist who spoke -- BY HER OWN CHOICE, BY HER OWN INVITATION -- to a women's auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan in 1926, and described the event in her own autobiography as a success that led to additional speaking invitations from similar groups. She did not stumble into that room. She sought the audience out because she understood that her message of "race betterment" through selective reproduction was one the Klan would receive warmly.

Sanger wrote, in her own words, in her own publications, about the need to discourage reproduction among populations she termed "unfit" and "dysgenic." She used the term "human weeds" for the communities she believed should not be reproducing. She advocated for what she called the "Negro Project" -- a 1939 initiative specifically targeted at reducing birth rates in Black communities in the American South, run with the explicit acknowledgment, in her own private correspondence, that Black ministers would need to be recruited as messengers because, in her words, the Black community "is not aware that the cleverest of all is to enslave them" through this approach. That is not a hostile interpretation of her record. That is her own letter. Look it up. It exists.

This is not ancient history disconnected from the present-day organization. This is the institution's FOUNDING PURPOSE, and the outcomes today track that founding purpose with uncomfortable precision.

Black Americans have the highest abortion rate of any demographic group in the country, by a significant margin -- a rate disproportionate to their share of the population by a wide measure. Planned Parenthood clinics are disproportionately located in or near Black and minority communities, a geographic pattern that multiple independent analyses have documented for years. This is not conspiracy theory. This is mapping data anyone can pull up and verify against census tracts.

And the Democratic Party defends this organization's federal funding in every single budget cycle, with the same passion they reserve for any core institutional priority. At the 2024 Democratic National Convention, Planned Parenthood parked a mobile clinic near the venue and performed approximately twenty abortions during the convention itself -- not quietly, but as a publicized, celebrated presence at the party's signature political event of the cycle.

I am pro-choice in the sense that I believe adults are capable of making decisions about their own behavior. I also believe that since sex is the proximate cause of pregnancy, perhaps "reproductive freedom" is a curious term for an institution whose primary function is preventing reproduction, particularly within the specific demographic its founder targeted by name in her own private correspondence.

Why does an organization with Planned Parenthood's budget, donor base, and political influence require ongoing taxpayer subsidy when crisis pregnancy alternatives like PreBorn operate without one dollar of government money? Why is the answer to that question always some version of "women need access," as though the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid -- both of which Democrats passed specifically to guarantee healthcare access -- do not already exist? You cannot simultaneously tell me your healthcare programs solved the access problem and that we still need a specific, federally subsidized abortion provider because access is otherwise unavailable. Pick one.

Here is the founder. Here is the founding purpose, in her own words. Here is the demographic data, tracking that purpose with disturbing consistency a century later. Here is the party that defends its funding without fail, every single cycle.

That is not a historical footnote. That is a structure. It was built by one party, on a eugenicist foundation, and it is operating exactly as designed.

-- THE SCOREBOARD: ONE PARTY, TEN FORMS OF SYSTEMIC RACISM --

Let me put this together cleanly, the way I would for a test review.

The minimum wage: invented by eugenicists to price Black workers out of the labor market, still producing that outcome by documented data. Democratic policy.

Labor unions: spent decades systematically excluding Black workers from membership and skilled trade access, still collecting Democratic campaign money while opposing right-to-work laws. Democratic constituency.

The voter ID argument: the official Democratic position requires believing Black Americans cannot obtain a government ID, a feat accomplished routinely by every other adult in the country. Democratic platform.

Racial gerrymandering: invented by Democrats in 1812, used for a century to suppress Black Republican voters, now repackaged as racial protection while continuing to manage Black voters as political infrastructure. Democratic invention, Democratic defense.

The welfare architecture: structurally collapsed the Black two-parent household rate from 80 percent to below 30 percent in one generation through marriage penalties and dependency incentives. Democratic policy.

DEI and race-based admissions: systemic discrimination against white and Asian applicants, struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, still defended at every turn. Democratic policy.

Exclusionary zoning: demonstrated by empirical research to correlate with Black in-migration patterns, functionally excludes Black families from wealth-building homeownership in the most progressive communities in the country. Democratic constituencies defending it.

Democrat-run urban education: fifty years of the worst educational outcomes for Black children in the country, in cities governed exclusively by Democrats, defended by Democratic-aligned teachers unions opposing any structural accountability. Democratic governance.

Planned Parenthood: founded by a eugenicist who courted the Klan and targeted Black birth rates by name in her own letters, still operating disproportionately in the communities her founding project targeted, still defended by Democratic budget votes every single cycle. Democratic funding priority.

-- THE CLOSING ARGUMENT: THE ACCUSATION IS THE CONFESSION --

Quinn's Second Law states that what liberals accuse conservatives of is exactly what they are already doing.

The party that has screamed "systemic racism" louder than anyone for the last sixty years built the minimum wage system that was DESIGNED to price Black workers out of the labor market. Built the welfare architecture that structurally destroyed Black family formation in one generation. Built the racial gerrymandering system that managed Black voters as political infrastructure. Built the labor union movement that excluded Black workers from skilled trades for decades. Built the zoning policies that function as de facto neighborhood exclusion. Built -- and continues to operate -- the urban school systems producing the worst educational outcomes for Black children in the country. Built the DEI system that the Supreme Court had to strike down as unconstitutional racial discrimination. Built, funded, and still defends an organization founded by a woman who personally targeted Black birth rates by name in her own private letters.

They built all of it. And then they stood at the podium and told you to look somewhere else.

The systemic racism Ben Shapiro challenges you to identify is real. It is documented. It is measurable. It has receipts. It has congressional records, Supreme Court opinions, peer-reviewed economic research, and fifty years of outcome data in the cities where this party's governance is the only variable.

It just does not point in the direction they told you it did.

And that is why answering the challenge is, for them, an existential threat. Not because systemic racism does not exist. Because naming it accurately ends their entire political enterprise.

The demand for white supremacy and systemic racism among the American left consistently outstrips the supply. They cannot afford for the problem to be solved. They cannot afford for you to find out who actually built the trap.

Here you go. Now you know.

But what do I know -- I am only a medically retired Army combat medic who served in Iraq, a published high school science teacher in a high-need district who has watched Democratic education policy fail the students I wake up every morning to serve, and a person who spent considerably more time reading the primary sources on this subject than the blatherskite standing behind the podium telling you to look somewhere else."